Malcolm Wicks: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	I wish to begin by thanking my right hon. Friends the Members for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) and for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Alun Michael), my hon. Friends the Members for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey), for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz), for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy), for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) and for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn), and the hon. Members for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), for Buckingham (John Bercow) and for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill) for supporting the Bill. I also wish to record my thanks to officials from the Treasury for their technical support, and to Michael Stephenson and colleagues from the Co-operative party.
	Let me place today's debate in context—historical, contemporary and future. Much debate in this House over many decades has been about the respective merits or demerits of private enterprise, as opposed to public ownership or public service. Yet there is, of course, a formidable third sector—I hesitate to use the term "third way"—based on ideals of mutuality or co-operation.
	The early ideal and the practice of co-operation more than two centuries ago was a product of its time, the backdrop being industrialisation and urbanisation with the gross exploitation of men and women during that period of rapid economic and social change. Living standards were threatened for those on modest incomes. As young Beatrice Potter, later Mrs. Sidney Webb, wrote in her first book about the co-op movement:
	"The belief in a co-operative system of industry arose in the untutored mind of Robert Owen and, doubtless, in the minds of other English men, as they watched the doings of the stupendous revolution in industry and commerce which engrossed the energies, stimulated and governed the activity of the middle- and working-class from 1770 onwards."
	Robert Owen is, of course, a key figure, but many have traced the origins of co-operation or mutuality to a much earlier history. Indeed, there is even a reference that in 203 AD— [ Interruption. ] Given his chuckle, my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (David Lepper) obviously recalls the reference. In 203 AD, the Romans had mutual insurance societies to provide for death and retirement, so giving an early answer to the Pythonesque question of "What did the Romans ever do for us?"
	After a long period of slumber and decline, co-operatives and mutuals are experiencing a renaissance. It could hardly be more timely. With the mainstream banking sector in some disrepute, customers seek a reliable and honest home for their money. With many people looking for ethical alternatives, goods that are fairly traded and produced sustainably make co-ops, both large and small, attractive. Some are also attracted to the idea of what we used to refer to as the "divi", which is not a daily allowance, but an annual one.
	Co-ops, mutuals and credit unions are already significant players in the British economy, with total assets in excess of £400 billion and a combined membership of more than 30 million, but now we have the opportunity for a substantial expansion and, in the finance sector, for an alternative to both market structures and to nationalisation.
	Renewal is evidenced by three recent significant developments. The Co-operative Retail Society has now combined into one entity, bringing together many separate retail societies and around 2,200 stores. Secondly, the new unified Co-op is taking over more than 800 Somerfield retail stores, which will mean a combined market share of 8 per cent. To serenade the revival, Bob Dylan has allowed "Blowin' in the Wind" to be used as the soundtrack to a new Co-op advertising campaign—I note that the great man is bringing out a new album. Third, the Co-operative bank and the Britannia building society have announced plans for a merger—a new £70 billion "supermutual" bank.
	It is therefore my pleasure to introduce this Bill for its Second reading. The Bill traces its beginnings to a Government consultation of 2007, which reviewed the legislation for credit unions and co-operatives in Great Britain. Responses to that consultation indicated an overall desire to update the legislation for credit unions and co-ops. Although there have been legislative changes in recent years, the bulk of credit union legislation had not been updated for almost 30 years and much of the legislation for co-ops, as embodied in the Industrial and Provident Society Act 1965, was itself a consolidation of 19th-century legislation. The Government's response to the initial consultation was equally emphatic and signalled a desire to legislate.
	The consultation identified some 30 or so issues for both credit unions and industrial and provident societies that needed to be addressed in order to bring the legislation in line with international comparators and to meet the commercial realities of the 21st century. The Government plan to take forward the majority of the proposed reforms using a legislative reform order, but there are still some residual issues that can be addressed only through primary legislation, hence this private Member's Bill.
	Before I go on to introduce the detailed content of the Bill, I want briefly to highlight the important role that credit unions and co-ops play in today's society and economy. Credit unions and co-operatives, as mutual societies, are inherently different from proprietary companies. They belong to their members and are not answerable to external shareholders. They are therefore able to operate on longer-term planning horizons without pressure for short-term profit or gain. That ethos is even more important in the current economic climate.
	Credit unions in Great Britain not only provide for greater choice and diversity in the economy but offer many people on low incomes an opportunity to engage with mainstream financial services. They encourage their members to save in order to become eligible for loans, thereby instilling a savings culture among them—a culture of thrift and caution that must be admired. I witnessed that good work myself on Monday evening, when I was asked to speak about the Bill at the annual general meeting of the Croydon Savers credit union. That credit union has more than 1,000 members and plays a valuable role in my constituency. Perhaps I should declare a potential interest in that, encouraged by the excellent work of my local credit union, I have decided to become a member. I hope in the initial months to be a saver member, but I never take elections for granted and there is always a possibility that the saving-borrowing situation could change in the future.
	Credit unions have also been prolific in supporting savings initiatives such as child trust funds and individual savings accounts. They have historically operated in areas of economic and social deprivation, often being the only means of engagement with the financial system for many who have been financially excluded. They offer an affordable alternative to unscrupulous doorstep lenders, some of whom have been known to charge annual percentage rates that exceed 200 per cent., contributing to increasing debt and misery for thousands of families.
	Credit unions are the decent alternative to both the high street banks, which often, sadly, offer little to low-income groups, and the foul loan sharks, charging extortionate interest rates, who stalk single mothers in our most deprived communities. Today there are more than 500 credit unions in Great Britain with nearly 700,000 members and assets in excess of £500 million. From its humble beginnings, the credit union sector has grown from strength to strength.
	The contribution of co-operative enterprise to the UK economy is well documented. Co-operative enterprise is at the forefront of responsible business practice including fair trade, ethical policies based on customers' concerns and corporate social responsibility, as well as significant community sponsorship. Co-operatives are also leading innovation in many sectors; Braille on packaging is just one example.

Malcolm Wicks: I agree. I have talked about the co-ops leading on much innovation, and internet business is one example of that. That is of great help to many families who have access to the internet and want to use co-operative and ethical alternatives.
	Co-operative enterprises have a distinct community focus, engineering social cohesion and fostering local entrepreneurship. They straddle a wide range of businesses from cottage industries to large enterprises such as the Co-operative Group. Co-operative enterprise continues to grow and there are now more than 8,000 co-operatives registered in Great Britain as industrial and provident societies. That is a long and honourable tradition, as we have seen, on which we can build.
	The recent economic downturn has cast a shadow over much of the financial services sector, yet in all this co-operatives and credit unions continue to persevere and, indeed, to thrive. I want to see a revitalised and self-sustaining co-operative and credit union sector, attracting a new generation of members and offering much needed services to its members. The Bill complements other planned legislative changes that the Government are carrying out. It will allow the sector to expand and place it in a better position to operate in today's competitive economic environment. The Bill will also ensure that important corporate governance improvements can be made to credit union and co-operatives legislation.
	There is a distinguished tradition of private Members' Bills for the mutuals sector. Examples abound and include those promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), who I see in his place, by my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) and, more recently, by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill), who is one of the sponsors of this Bill.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West created an enabling power for the Treasury to amend industrial and provident society legislation using secondary legislation in line with any changes to company law. My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire introduced an important power to enable the Treasury to lay secondary legislation to introduce an asset lock for community benefit societies. The asset lock is designed to ensure that on a break-up of an industrial and provident society, assets are not distributed to individuals but are transferred to a society with similar ideals. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West introduced important changes to building society legislation and facilitated the transfer of a mutual business to another in the mutual family as an alternative to demutualisation. The recent announcement of the proposed merger between the Co-op Group, including its bank, and Britannia building society was made possible by his important legislation.

Malcolm Wicks: That is a useful reminder.
	I shall now turn to the provisions of the Bill, although not in too much detail. It is aimed at modernising the legislative framework for credit unions and co-operatives. I am pleased to inform hon. Members that in addition to making provision for credit unions, this Bill makes provision for co-operatives run for the benefit of their members and co-operatives that are run for the benefit of the community—I am advised that these are often referred to as "bencoms". Indeed, Treasury lawyers wanted me to say, "Or bencoms, as they are popularly known." That is a popularity not known on the streets of Croydon, North, but it just goes to show that what is popular in the Treasury in not always popular elsewhere. During Budget week, I should not have said that—strike it from the minutes!
	These bencoms have increased in popularity since their inception in 2002 and many housing associations, social clubs and football and rugby supporters clubs now use the model incorporating an asset lock. Clause 1 provides that all new societies registered under the 1965 Act may be registered as co-operative societies or community benefit societies. Most co-operatives are registered under the 1965 Act. However, while many would agree that co-operatives are indeed industrious, it is a bit of a misnomer to refer to all of them as industrial. There is, of course, the exception of agricultural co-operatives. As for the word "provident" in the Act, some might argue that it makes the societies sound like institutions of a bygone age, although we hope that they will be provident and prudent in future.
	By modernising the name to one that is in common usage, we can help the sector to adopt a modern, 21st-century persona. The introduction of a requirement for new societies to register will also ensure that they can be properly supervised by the Financial Services Authority; that would improve corporate governance in the sector. Clause 2 changes the name of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 and other Industrial and Provident Societies Acts, and goes a long way towards removing the term "industrial and provident societies" from the statute book.
	Clause 3 applies the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 to officers of industrial and provident societies, just as it applies to officers of companies, building societies and friendly societies. The 1986 Act provides for the disqualification of officers of companies and various bodies when such officers have seriously mismanaged them. Disqualification means being prohibited for a period from being involved in the management of a company or acting as an insolvency practitioner. Under the law as it currently stands, officers of industrial and provident societies who have mismanaged the society cannot be disqualified. Clause 3 will make their disqualification possible. That will ensure that officers of industrial and provident societies are subject to appropriate sanctions similar to those faced by directors of companies. It will give reassurance to their members and serve as a useful incentive for sound management practices.
	Clause 4 gives the Treasury powers to apply to industrial and provident societies certain provisions of company law—on dissolution and restoration of industrial and provident societies to the register, which is kept by the FSA; on investigation of companies; and on company names. It will give the Treasury the power to apply company law on the striking-off and dissolution of defunct societies by the FSA. The provisions include appropriate modifications for co-operatives, so that in the event of dissolution their assets can be transferred to a society with similar objects. That will serve to improve the power of the FSA to deal with societies that remain on the register but have no contact with the FSA. I understand that a number of societies neither file returns nor respond to correspondence.
	The law as it stands does not provide the FSA with the tools that it needs properly to deal with the problem. Existing procedures for removing defunct societies are cumbersome. The provisions in the Bill will lead to a neater, clearer, quicker and more formal tool to cancel the registration of such societies. Clause 4 will also give the Treasury the power to enhance the FSA's power to investigate companies and requisition documents from industrial and provident societies. The FSA is the registrar of industrial and provident societies in the same way that Companies House, an executive agency of the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, is the registrar of companies.
	Under current law, the FSA has certain powers to investigate industrial and provident societies, but such powers are limited, particularly in respect of those societies that are not regulated by the FSA as providing financial or insurance services. In contrast with that, the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform has more extensive powers to investigate companies. Clause 4 will enable the Treasury to give the FSA powers of investigation in respect of industrial and provident societies equivalent to the powers that the Secretary of State has in respect of companies. That will increase the FSA's ability to check the proper running of those societies and their corporate governance.
	Clause 4 will also give the Treasury the power to apply to industrial and provident societies certain company law provisions concerning names. The FSA, as registrar of industrial and provident societies, already has certain powers in respect of names of societies. For example, it may refuse to register a society under a name that it considers undesirable. However, the Secretary of State has more extensive powers in respect of the names of companies than the FSA has for societies. For example, the Secretary of State has powers to direct a company to change its name if that name is similar to another name on the register or if a company provides misleading information in order to register by a particular name. By enabling the Treasury to give similar powers to the FSA, clause 4 will improve the FSA's ability to regulate the names of industrial and provident societies. Great care has been taken to ensure that the proposed modifications are appropriate to industrial and provident societies, and that they do not create extra burdens.
	Finally, clause 5 enables provisions corresponding to building society law to be made for credit unions. The power will allow any provisions of building societies legislation that is deemed appropriate to be mirrored for credit unions. There has been a significant expansion in credit union membership in recent years, and the best way of allowing credit union law to keep pace with credit unions' expanding membership and operations is to be able to bring it into line with building society law, which is tailored to deal with issues specific to institutions that accept deposits. Clauses 6, 7 and 8 deal with technical issues such as the making of consequential amendments and regulations under the Bill, the short title, commencement and territorial extent.
	Why is the Bill important? It not only offers an opportunity to make much needed reforms to the legislation on co-operatives and credit unions, but modernises the framework and enhances the corporate governance standards for such societies. Renaming and rebranding them will make the legislation easier to relate to, and will provide greater appeal to a new, younger generation of members. The Bill comes at a time when the work of credit unions has never been more important, and when ever more consumers are attracted to the ethos and ethics of co-operation and the quality of the product and services offered by such societies.

Andrew Love: I thank my hon. Friend for that question, because it gives me the opportunity to describe a conundrum: we often talk about the need not to get tied up in housing tenure, so we should talk not about rented or owner-occupied accommodation but about providing good accommodation. Co-operative housing shifts the focus off tenure and tries to deal with quality and the provision of decent standards in housing. I am amazed that, while Scandinavian countries, Canada and many other western countries have significant co-operative housing movements, the United Kingdom, sadly, does not. As policy makers, we ought to think seriously—although perhaps not in this debate today—about trying to create the conditions in which a housing co-operative movement can flourish.
	Let me return to the retail co-operative movement. Bob Dylan's "Blowin' in the Wind" has been part and parcel of the Co-operative's insignia and television adverts, and the group has taken over Somerfield; furthermore, Co-operative Financial Services and Britannia building society have amalgamated. Some suspect that the first super-mutual is being created. We can thank the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill), whose legislation created the conditions under which that could happen. I hope that the Bill will help to create conditions in which the co-operative and credit union movements can go forward.
	Credit unions have been growing relatively fast since the original legislation that created the credit union movement came into being in the late 1970s. Currently, there are about 650,000 members of credit unions, with roughly £590 million in assets. We ought to look at the ambition of the movement if we are to grasp the possibilities. In conjunction with the Co-operative bank, credit unions have recently been able to set up current accounts for their members, and many are considering partnerships that will allow them to issue credit cards. Moving into mainstream financial services is the way forward for credit unions, and we must do everything we can to foster that.
	At the time of the original legislation in the late 1970s, this country's credit unions, formed mainly through immigrant Irish and West Indian communities, had fewer than 10,000 members and assets of less than £1 million. We can see how much credit unions have advanced in that time, but they have much more to do if they are to be relevant to communities and members throughout the country. I hope that the Bill will allow us to make changes. Credit unions still exist under the framework of the original Act of Parliament, and modernisation is long overdue. I hope that my right hon. Friend's Bill will help to achieve it.
	What will the Bill do for co-operatives and credit unions? First, it will allow them to improve their services. Member and customer loyalty is important, and the Bill will help strengthen it. It will help create greater trust. We know, for example, that the public trust building societies much more than banks, and all the evidence says that the public—especially credit union members—also trust credit unions. Retail and other co-operatives undoubtedly have a strong link with their members, and that trust, which is critical, is fostered in the Bill.
	The Bill will help the organisations to respond to community and membership needs, which is also critical. Co-operatives, community benefit societies and credit unions serve particular markets—often markets ignored by the private sector. We have talked about the need of low-income consumers for basic financial services; often, they cannot go to a bank or any other conventional high-street organisation, and credit unions are critical in helping them get such services.
	The Bill will help modernise the movement and make it more relevant. It will also help the organisations to innovate. As was mentioned, the 2007 Treasury consultation is pertinent. The members and customers of co-operatives, credit unions and community benefit societies were consulted about what they needed to improve their organisations. Not everything will appear in the Bill, although it does a great deal; other things could be enacted through secondary legislation in the House, and many are critical for the future of credit unions.
	I mention, in passing, the issue of the reform of the common bond, on which there has been debate. Sadly, my own Edmonton credit union is no longer with us, but I remember our many debates about how we could form a common bond that would make it possible for it to expand its services. We are beginning to see the need for that type of reform. Payment of interest on accounts happens within other conventional financial services organisations, and it ought to happen in credit unions. The membership of corporate bodies might seem a simple issue, but it could make an enormous difference to the well-being and progress of credit unions up and down the country.
	Many of those changes and the changes in the Bill have been promoted by the credit union movement and co-operatives, and the Bill address issues for which there is a need for primary legislation. It has the strong support of members and of the organisations concerned, which is why I am pleased that we are here today supporting it. I understand that Government Front Benchers and one of the Opposition parties support it; I wait to hear the position of the other one. I am sad that so few Members are in the Chamber today, but I hope that everyone here supports the Bill.
	I turn briefly to the changes to be introduced by the Bill. I am sorry if I am repeating what has already been said, but it is important that we clarify why the Bill is being brought forward. Industrial provident societies will now be registered as co-operative societies or community benefit societies. I would like to be reassured that the newly named co-operative societies will comprise only bona fide societies that have in their rules the Rochdale principles, on which co-operation is based, if they are to qualify to be called co-operative societies. I am not clear whether that is the case, but it is an important consideration. When the Bill is in Committee, I hope that the Minister will give a reassurance that those principles will be a core component of any organisation that calls itself a co-operative society.
	It seems plausible and logical that to be a community benefit society, a society must be for the "benefit of the community". That is an important consideration. Not all so-called industrial and provident societies that are supposed to be for community benefit turn out to have a benefit for the community. The upgrade is important and will reassure the public that something called a community benefit society will truly be one.
	I mentioned earlier that the Bill would update the language we use, making it relevant to people today and giving them a much more accurate view of what these organisations do. Similarly, clause 2 would change the name of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 to the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies and Credit Unions Act 1965. That may sound like a very simple change, but during the passage of previous legislation—other Members here have been present at that time—we have called for a change of this nature to update the name and, without putting it too dramatically, in effect to sweep away industrial and provident societies by renaming them. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North on that—although I have to say that referring to co-operative and community benefit societies and credit unions Acts would be quite a mouthful for those 600,000 credit union members when discussing them at their meetings.
	Clause 3 would make credit unions and industrial and provident societies subject to the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. One of the most curious anomalies in this area has been that until the time of that Act, these organisations could not disqualify someone who had mismanaged the organisation of which they were part. It seems unbelievable that people could continue to be at the centre of organisations when it was clear that they had totally mismanaged them. The Bill also covers disqualification for criminal conduct—a very welcome clarification that would provide a strengthened role for the membership of these organisations to ensure that they are administered properly.
	The benefits of the Bill would be threefold. First, it would in many ways provide a level playing field with other organisations with which these organisations compete in the marketplace. That is very important. Secondly, it would give protection against unfit directors, or trustees as they are called in these organisations, thereby strengthening the membership's role in ensuring that their trustees act in the best interests of their organisation. Thirdly, it would provide transparency, clarity and consistency for members, again strengthening their role, which is vital in terms of their being democratic organisations.
	The next part of the Bill would bring certain provisions of company law into operation for industrial and provident societies and credit unions. As a result, some of the secondary legislation that applies to companies would now apply to these organisations, so that they would be able to carry out investigations. That is absolutely vital. A member should be able to go to the registrar and call for action on something, and it should be able to be done; that has not been the case so far. The ability to take action on company names is an important power. Often, names will exist not to provide transparency but to hide the purpose of the organisation. There would be the power to dissolve societies and to remove them from the register—although I think that that would satisfy the Financial Services Authority, which wants to get rid of these organisations, more than their memberships. Those would be welcome changes, updating the legislation to bring it into the 21st century and bringing it up to the standards of legislation covering other companies and organisations.
	Clause 5 would align credit union legislation with the existing provisions of building society law. That is very important. As I said, credit union legislation has not been comprehensively updated since the original Act way back in the late '70s. That Act was very proscriptive: it covered almost everything that credit unions could do and limited their room for innovation. The ability to introduce changes that are taking place in building society law would ensure that these organisations do not continue to be left behind. For all those credit union members out there who may be worried about this, the first thing we should say is that none of this would affect the defining characteristics of credit unions. Credit unions would still be financial organisations based in the community and run by their members on democratic principles—important principles that separate credit unions from other financial organisations. Those defining characteristics would be protected in the Bill. Nevertheless, it would facilitate, through secondary legislation, the updating of credit union law to bring it into line with that on building societies, creating a level playing field. These organisations do not want any preferential treatment, but they do not want to be disadvantaged in the marketplace, and the Bill would help to ensure that that does not happen.
	What would the Bill do overall to improve the situation for both these types of organisation? Its most important effect would be to increase protection for the ordinary member. For an ordinary member with a deposit in a credit union—I have been one in the past—it would increase the protection they are afforded. For an ordinary retail co-operative member, it would provide reassurance that if something was going wrong, action could be taken. It would modernise the language and the law to bring them into the 21st century. It would—I repeat this point, but it is really important to grasp it—create a level playing field. It would remove unreasonable barriers and burdens that have been placed on industrial and provident societies and credit unions. Much of that would be done through secondary legislation, but the Bill would enable that secondary legislation to occur. On the basis of the provisions in the Bill, including its enabling provisions to make further changes, I commend it to the House.

Ian Pearson: I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North (Malcolm Wicks) for his eloquent and erudite introduction to the Bill. He set out the issues clearly and concisely, and his Bill certainly has Government support.
	I thank hon. Members who spoke in the debate, because they all made important and valuable contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) spoke about the ethical values embedded in co-operation and the valuable work of co-operators in the community. She highlighted the activities of co-operative banking and its role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and promoting women in business, both of which initiatives I strongly applaud.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) referred to the 149-year history of the Plymouth & South West Co-operative Society and the Wolseley Community Economic Development Trust and others. I recognise, as do the Government, the important role that co-operation and community development has played in Plymouth. She rightly pointed out the strength of this sector in the south-west and mentioned the role of social enterprises in our economy and their resilience in difficult economic times—something that we all recognise.
	Speaking for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) gave his party's support to the Bill. He mentioned the risk of denaturing the sector, which I know it is aware of and am sure it will avoid. He also mentioned the sector's important role in providing informal financial education. He will be aware that financial education is very high on the Government's agenda. He will also know that, in tandem with the Financial Services Authority, we recently launched pathfinders in north-west and north-east England under the "Money made clear" brand to help promote greater financial literacy in education. We hope that they will be rolled out as quickly as possible, following the announcement in this week's Budget.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) supported the change in the name of the industrial and provident society Acts and, in particular, the creation of the level playing field that the Bill seeks to achieve. He pointed to the growth of credit unions and spoke about the level of ambition of the sector. I certainly agree with him in wanting to do more.
	My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey) talked about his 18-year career as a Co-operative party organiser. I well know from the fact that he is a constituency near-neighbour of mine that he has been a long-standing champion of this sector. He quoted statistics about the people's trust in mutuals and co-operation, which demonstrated a very important point. I am pleased that, although the historian in him might have had reservations about the changing of the name from industrial and provident societies, he nevertheless supports it, as the practical politician and experienced organiser in him probably recognises is the right thing to do.
	As has been noted, the Bill builds on a tradition of previous private Members' Bills proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Margaret Beckett) and the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill), which sought to update legislation. The Bill contains measures for which the co-operative and credit union sector specifically asked. It will help to modernise the legislative framework for co-operatives and credit unions and put in place appropriate mechanisms to enhance their corporate governance. It will, I am sure, help the sector to continue to flourish, which we all want to see.
	Co-operatives and credit unions make an important contribution to the UK's economic and social well-being. Many people's perception of a co-operative will be defined by the local Co-op retail stores that they know and shop at. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton spoke about their pioneering promotion of Fairtrade products—again, the Government strongly support that. I might add they regularly have some quite stunning wine offers.

Ian Pearson: Again, my hon. Friend makes a good point about how the ethical underpinnings of the co-operative movement drive the desire to introduce products that are fair trade and that benefit people in developing countries.
	I want to stress, however, that co-operative retailing is only one small part of a bigger story in respect of the mutual sector. Co-operatives now operate in many different sectors of the economy. They are involved in a wide variety of businesses, such as banking, insurance, agriculture and food, livestock and grain marketing, the manufacture of surgical equipment, health food wholesale and distribution, telecoms, and even natural sciences research and development.
	Several Members cited figures, and the figures I have show that in the UK alone more than 8,000 co-operatives are registered as industrial and provident societies, with about 19 million members and total assets of almost £120 billion. There are also more than 500 credit unions in Great Britain, with almost 700,000 members and total assets of more than £500 million. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North said when talking about the Croydon Savers credit union, for those on low incomes credit unions continue to offer a viable alternative to the unscrupulous doorstep lenders, who often charge interest in excess of 200 per cent. APR. We must do all we can to ensure that credit unions thrive and play an even more important role in the economy. I agree with my right hon. Friend's comment that credit unions are the "decent alternative".
	In all this, the common thread of mutuality is that the business is owned by the members and run for the benefit of their members—the savers and borrowers of a credit union, or the farmers in an agricultural co-operative. These businesses have no external shareholders whose interests may be different from those of members. Often, this can give them the freedom to operate on long-term horizons without pressure for short-term gain or profit—something that other business models may not be able to do so easily. Having these different corporate forms enhances choice and competition, to the benefit of all consumers. To stress that mutuals operate for the benefit of members is not to say that only their members benefit from their activities; after all, we all know that not all Co-op shoppers are members. We should also recognise the wider community functions that mutuals often play—for example, the Co-op Group sponsoring the "Pride of Britain" awards and, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, the role of the sector in promoting social cohesion and entrepreneurship.
	For all these reasons, it has been a long-standing aim of this Government to see a thriving and self-sustaining mutual sector. We have done a great deal in recent years to help the sector grow and fulfil its potential. We have done that partly through funding. For example, the Government have set up an £80 million growth fund for credit unions and community development financial institutions. A further £18.75 million was announced in this week's Budget, to bring the total to almost £100 million. This fund is providing community-based lenders with additional capital to on-lend to those on low incomes in areas of high financial exclusion and the revenue support to cover the costs of the service. More than 160,000 credit union members have benefited from these loans since the start of the fund in July 2006.
	The Government have also taken steps to ensure that the sector has an up-to-date regulatory framework within which to operate. We are taking forward important legislative reforms for credit unions and co-operatives, using a legislative reform order. We propose that the LRO will go through Parliament under the affirmative resolution procedure, so Members will have a further opportunity to debate this subject.
	Before concluding, I want to respond to the comments of the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban), who spoke on behalf of the official Opposition. He also spoke about the importance of the mutual sector and gave the examples of NHS foundation trusts and football supporters' clubs in addition to the usual areas we talk about in respect of this sector. He mentioned on at least two occasions the renaissance of interest in mutuals, and he is right about that. He also talked about the benefits of democratic accountability and consumer focus, and I am pleased to hear that the Conservative party believes that they are important. I also agree that co-operative models can be applied to the delivery of public services. That is an important area where the Government have already taken action, but I believe that more can be done.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned Presbyterian mutual society. As he is aware, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment in Northern Ireland is the registrar. However, there is nothing in the Industrial and Provident Societies Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 about prudential regulation or hands-on supervision. The onus has been on a society to seek authorisation, in this case from the Financial Services Authority, if it was planning to carry on business within the scope of that authority. However, as the legislation does not say anything about prudential supervision, we might need to review it. As he will be aware, in the 2008 pre-Budget report, we announced a review of the framework for credit unions and industrial and provident societies in Northern Ireland, working closely with the Northern Ireland Executive. I hope to be able to publish the findings of that review very shortly.

Mark Hoban: Does the Minister not think, however, that there is an obligation on the Government here in London and on the devolved Assembly in Northern Ireland to understand why the Presbyterian mutual society seemed to disappear beneath the radar of the FSA as regulator of financial services and the DETI in Northern Ireland as the registrar for industrial and provident societies in Northern Ireland?

Ian Pearson: I certainly agree that it is important that we learn the lessons from what has happened with the Presbyterian mutual society. These will be considered as part of the review, and, as I have said, I hope to publish its findings shortly.

Malcolm Wicks: Absolutely, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Harold Wilson once said that the Labour party perhaps learnt more from Methodism than from Marxism, and temperance is something that all of my colleagues in the Chamber today have learnt—certainly in theory.
	I shall not respond to every point that has been made today. We heard some very good speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn), for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy), for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey)—he treated us to some good history—and for Edmonton (Mr. Love), and a very important intervention from my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Alun Michael).
	My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton talked about the importance of the Rochdale pioneers—those on the Conservative Benches of course know the details of those pioneers—and the short answer to his question of whether those principles will be reflected in the Bill is yes. Clause 1 states:
	"A society may be registered as a co-operative society only if it is shown to the satisfaction of the Authority that the society is a  bona fide co-operative society."
	No doubt we will be able to look at some of those issues in some more detail—I hope not in great detail—in Committee. The question that he raised was important.
	The hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, made a thoughtful speech. He urged us not to be complacent on some of these issues, and I can see the point that he is making: there will always be a tension between the virtues of smallness—small can be beautiful when it comes to credit unions—and, because many are seeking to expand, enabling modernisation and, in some respects, expansion.
	How do we hold on to the virtues of the self-help nature of the credit union? I have mentioned that I attended the annual general meeting of the Croydon Savers credit union, where I saw for myself the 40 to 60 people in that room discussing for an hour and a half or so the nitty-gritty details of a very local, 1,000-member credit union. We need to hang on to those principles. Indeed, despite the fervour of many of us in favour of mutuality and co-operation, we should remember that we must put those principles into practice.
	When one looks back at the demutualisation of part of the building society movement, one finds that it has had catastrophic effects. How many of those demutualised building societies are now independent banking entities? They have been taken over and nationalised. That demutualisation was able to take place—people agreed to take a few hundred pounds to vote for it—because some of those mutuals had lost contact with their members; they were mutual in theory but not in practice. The hon. Gentleman's thoughtful speech reminds us that we must not be complacent and get too carried away with mere rhetoric.
	I am very grateful for support from the Liberal Democrats and, indeed, from the hon. Member for Fareham, who made a very good speech. He rather reminded us that sometimes great support for a private Member's Bill can evaporate. He referred to the private Member's Bill promoted by his colleague, the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill), and that was an important warning. I shall ensure that, with my colleagues in the Treasury, we will scrutinise my Bill most thoroughly to ensure that the Croydon credit union cannot make a late takeover bid for Lehman Brothers. I think that that was the gist of the hon. Gentleman's warning.
	The hon. Gentleman also reminded us, from his vantage point in Fareham, that although we often associate the history and much of the strength of the co-op movement with the north, there is a strong southern tradition too. He may note that under my Bill, through an Order in Council, it might be possible for the legislation to apply to the Channel Islands. As someone who is married to a Channel Islander, I know that both Guernsey and Jersey have a thriving co-operative sector. If my geography is right, both are somewhat south of Fareham.
	We have had a useful debate, with support across the Chamber. A spirit of consensus has broken out, and we are all co-operators now. That may have something to do with the fact that while those of us on the left in politics are proud of the origins of the co-operative movement as part of a wider labour movement, there is a sense in which many of the virtues of mutuality, thrift, self-help and responsibility strike chords on the other side of the Chamber. That is perhaps the reason for the wide support for the Bill. I look forward to further exchanges in Committee, should that be the will of the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Public Bill Committee .

Oliver Letwin: I should begin by saying that my brief appearance in the Chamber without a tie was not an expression of extreme Cameroonian modernism, but merely an oversight on my part; I do not have a mirror in my office. I hope that it will be recognised that I am now perfectly attired.
	This Bill, brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), is enormously valuable and I want to speak about three of its elements. I take entirely into account the thoughtful observations of the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) about some of the practical issues, but my first point is that there are severe strains in the current palliative care system. I mentioned the case of children's hospices in my intervention, as did my hon. Friend in her speech; it does not conform to the general pattern for hospices, which receive, as my hon. Friend said, about 30 per cent. of their support from the state. In many instances, very little support from the taxpayer is available to children's hospices at all.
	I have associated my constituency with two children's hospices that have had particular problems in recent months. That is due partly to the peculiar circumstances of the Icelandic banking crisis and partly to the decline in giving that has inevitably resulted from the recession. The lack of serious taxpayer funding is a significant problem under such circumstances, and my hon. Friend's Bill would do much to help address that practical issue. The two children's hospices that I mentioned serve my constituents, so I have looked into the issue at some length. I am not persuaded that, when all the sums are done, there will be a saving to the taxpayer as a result of the current arrangements. On the contrary, I suspect that the taxpayer would, in a hidden way, meet considerable additional costs if the provision from children's hospices were to decline as a result of the current problems.
	Although she is now at the Department of Health, the Minister has been a distinguished occupant of a Treasury post; what I have mentioned may be a case of immediate Treasury control causing additional fiscal problems at a time when the nation certainly cannot afford such problems. Discussion of the Bill offers fertile ground for combining a prevention of decline in quality of life with, unusually, savings in public expenditure. I hope that the Minister can use her good offices and her past record in the Treasury to try to disentangle all that, and that as a result the Bill ends up benefiting both the taxpayer and those who most need the services.
	My second point is wider and more human. Both my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and the hon. Member for Southport mentioned the phrases "a good death" and "dying well". What my hon. Friend said about the importance of the moment of death and the approach to death is enormously welcome. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that our natural attitude to medicine, hospitals and so on is that they are "fix you" places, and that was also welcome. There is a significant and large-scale issue, of which that concern is one part. We have all had the experience of relations and others close to us dying at one time or another. Because of my father's condition, I also have experience of the incredible ability of our national health service to intervene and sustain life in a way that would have been impossible in previous eras.
	However, as a result of those various experiences, I also have, unfortunately, a pretty acute sense that there is a great gulf. On the one side, there is our current concentration on the ability to fix things, even to the extent of restoring life when it would otherwise have disappeared; that is something enormously impressive, to which huge resources are devoted and in which the techniques employed are now staggeringly effective. On the other side, there is the extreme paucity of provision for quality of life once someone has been rescued from near death, or once someone is kept in being for a period leading to their death.
	It would be wrong to say that keeping someone alive lacks all value if the quality of life is less; there is a value in life. However, the truth is that if one imagines oneself in the position of the person involved, mere life is not enough. There is an increasing problem of an imbalance between our attention to the question of keeping people alive, and our relative lack of attention to the question of the quality of life they enjoy while alive. At no time is that question more acute than as people approach death. It is therefore enormously welcome that we should focus not only on the Bill's technical characteristics, but on the points it raises about the need for a reorientation of our concerns away from the invasive and remarkable ways in which we can keep people alive and towards the question of how we can, as a nation, ensure that people have a quality of life, even right to the end, that is in accord with what we would wish for ourselves and for those we love and care for.
	The third and final point that I want to make is this. Having quite frequently visited friends, relations and constituents in hospices, and having also, as we all have, seen people approaching the end of their lives in hospitals, I have noticed a remarkable contrast. Of course, the level of care in hospitals is frequently admirable, as is the level of medical attention, but there is something about the way in which the patients feel and are treated in a hospice that is peculiarly suited to this very strange time of life—perhaps, in some ways, the most important time of life, as one approaches the end. There is nothing that I fear, particularly, about being dead, but we all fear the process of coming to death.
	I accept the points made by the Liberal Democrat spokesman about the difficulty of the state having a role in spiritual and psychological counselling. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden is surely right that there is, as one approaches the end of life, a need for something that goes way beyond what is usually perceived as medical support. It is almost inevitable that hospitals will focus largely on medical activity. That is not a failing of our hospitals; I cannot see what else a hospital would ever do. We demand of our hospitals that they are brilliantly good at fixing people—we hope, at least, that they will be good at doing it—and, by and large, they are. However, we cannot ask them at the same time to put the amount and quality of effort that a hospice can afford to put into the kind of support that—even if we do not describe it as spiritual, which is perhaps quite a long way down the track—is psychological. A hospice can provide the degree of psychological support that can make an enormous difference to the quality of those last days and weeks of a person's life. It is a good idea to enable people to transfer from a setting in which it is intrinsically difficult to do that to one in which it is intrinsically easier to do so. That is a large part of the gist of my hon. Friend's Bill, and I strongly support it.

Stephen O'Brien: I begin by warmly congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) on selecting this subject for her private Member's Bill. She made a strong and lucid case for prioritising the needs of patients receiving palliative care. I am sure that the House will agree that her compassion shone through her wonderful speech, which covered the ground comprehensively and cogently, particularly with regard to asserting the right of those undergoing end-of-life care to choose the setting in which they are treated.
	I am sure that all hon. Members present, and those who will read our proceedings, will agree with my hon. Friend that each individual deserves to die with dignity, in the place where they feel most at rest and comforted, be it at home, in a hospice or in a hospital. I echo the tributes that other hon. Members paid to the hospice movement, and in particular I pay tribute to St. Luke's hospice in Winsford in my constituency. It is one of the many hospices around the country working tirelessly to provide a place of refuge for people who are undergoing the ordeal of terminal or life-threatening illnesses and conditions, and for their families, friends and other loved ones. Its cause, and that of every hospice, is close to my heart. Through the work of my wife as a nurse at St. Luke's I come to know a great deal about the tremendous commitment and dedication and the special skill, which my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) mentioned, of those who work in hospices and all the ancillary workers. It is a wonderful form of work.
	As my right hon. Friend said, we need to bear in mind the fact that there is something extraordinarily special about those who engage themselves with people coming towards the end of life. It is care in all its contexts and meanings. It is care for individuals, their families and communities, and it is available in all settings and geographies and in relation to all illnesses and conditions. There is no greater compass of the word "care" than applies to palliative care and, above all, care as people approach the end of their lives. It ensures that pain control, comfort, confidence and good counsel are available.
	The issues raised by the Bill prompt the question of what it means to die well. In fact, the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh), who spoke for the Liberal Democrats, used the term "a good death". I dare say that if we track back only a few years, we as politicians would have been extremely chary about using that sort of phrase in the public domain. People recoiled from that slightly. It is a remarkable sign of how much we have come to understand the issues that surround this important matter that we are able to use a term such as "a good death" to help inform and shape the approach that we as policy makers, and society itself, take towards the extraordinarily important issue of giving people confidence through their lives that there is a process by which they can aim to have a good death and die well.
	If we are to have a choice about where we receive care at the end of our lives, the Government, the NHS and social care services must seek to understand the preferred circumstances in which an individual wants his or her life to come to an end. For most of us, dying well would entail spending our final moments free of pain, surrounded by loved ones in an environment of our choosing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden asserted, the majority of us do not wish to die in hospital, yet there are those who would prefer to be cared for there than place the burden of their care on their family and friends.
	I am sure that hon. Members agree that legislation must ensure that the fulfilment of patients' wishes for the end of their lives is not impeded by patchy delivery of palliative care resources and care services. If patients are to be given choice over the location of their palliative care, the palliative care sector must become a priority for the Government. It has remained the NHS's poorer cousin for perhaps too long. The Government shower the work of palliative care services with praise, and I pay tribute to them for that, yet we are all aware that it has been a problem for the Department of Health and other organs of government to match that expression with the action that is required to put in place the policies and other actions that will ensure that that work is adopted as part of mainstream thinking in care services. It is about not just putting in resources but removing barriers both cultural and active.
	The Government's long-awaited end-of-life care strategy goes some way towards acknowledging that the palliative care agenda must be prioritised in the coming years. I welcome that. Prior to the strategy, however, the Government had, to some degree, sidelined—although that is probably too strong a word in this context—palliative care, dismissing it as a lower priority sector. Indeed, the strategy admits that, describing palliative care's profile as "relatively low" in the NHS and social services.
	Hon. Members will be aware that, despite the strategy, palliative care still lacks its own payment-by-results tariff and relies on charitable donations to provide many of its services to patients. The Treasury, under the reigns of the Prime Minister when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, promised that by April 2006 charities would not subsidise the taxpayer. That pledge was made in the 2002 cross-cutting review of the role of the voluntary and community sector in service delivery. Since 2004, however, Government spending on hospices has actually fallen by 3 per cent. Figures from Help the Hospices show that today only 31 per cent. of hospice expenditure is Government funded, compared with 34 per cent. in 2004.

Stephen O'Brien: I am grateful to the Minister and glad that she took the opportunity to clarify the position. I was quoting the figures from Help the Hospices, as I am sure she is aware, and from the Sue Ryder Care briefing. Her answer might have indicated that there has been an increase in the absolute number, whereas I was focusing on the percentage of expenditure that is Government funded, but perhaps I paused for breath too quickly in the middle of a sentence before I could do so. None the less, the fact that there has been a percentage drop is an important point, even if the Government have clearly put it on the record that there has been an absolute rise.
	The National Audit Office has also emphasised the fact that nearly a quarter of PCT contracts with hospices are for one year only. Therefore, not only do the Government have to try to match their rhetoric with results, but we need to be careful that there is no watering down of any commitment to palliative care as each year passes. In order to fulfil the Government's pledge on palliative care, the Department of Health promised in 2004 to provide a tariff for palliative care by 2008-09. That tariff would ensure that palliative care services outside the NHS had their costs met in full by NHS funding. However, five years on and after that intended deadline, there is no sign of the tariff appearing. I hope that the Government will take the opportunity that this private Member's Bill provides to set that pledge right, because it is now both needed and desired.
	However, it is not the specifics of palliative care funding that I want to focus on today. Rather, I want to highlight how a collaborative approach to care from health and social services can enable palliative care to exceed the bounds of hospitals and hospices and become rooted in the community. I am grateful to the people at St. Luke's in Winsford for briefing me on how they are trying to move beyond those bounds. The Bill highlights the need for co-operation among NHS bodies, social services and voluntary organisations in the delivery of palliative care. Durable partnerships between those authorities will be instrumental in providing choice for palliative care patients and in opening up more opportunities to be cared for in the home, which is what we need to focus on.
	My hon. Friend has frequently drawn our attention to the fact that out of the 75 per cent. of people who die in hospital, 25 per cent. express a wish to die at home. Opinion polls from Marie Curie also suggest that 65 per cent. of the population would like to die at home. The desire for community based end-of-life care is clearly widespread, and if the public's call for more community care were not evidence enough to convince Ministers of the need for action, the stark demographic fact of our aging population must surely persuade them.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset talked about children's hospices, particularly those in his constituency. There is an important need for co-operation between social services and health provision in this context. Co-operation between social services and adult health is easier to achieve than similar co-operation with child health provision. Adult social services now come under the remit of the Department of Health, whereas the Department for Children, Schools and Families is responsible for children's social services. Work must be done to ensure that palliative care in the home is an option for children as well as for adults. The Government must ensure that the departmental divisions in responsibility for health and social care do not impede the co-operation between the services. The NHS and social services should investigate ways of working together to identify children in need of home care, and to deliver that care when it is requested and appropriate. I hope that the Government will take the opportunity, either today or shortly, to give us some clarification and hope on that matter.
	Turning back to the demographic changes and challenges that we face, the annual United Kingdom death rate is set to rise from 503,000 in 2006 to 586,000 in 2030—an increase of 17 per cent. It is an indisputable fact that demand for palliative care will increase. If health and social care services are to stand a chance of meeting that demand, palliative care services will have no choice but to filter out of hospitals and hospices and to permeate homes and communities. The terms of the Bill raise certain questions. What measures are the Government taking to plan for the emerging needs of our aging population in regard to palliative care? When will they act? How will they ensure that a patient's wish to be cared for at home can be honoured?
	In recent years, I have investigated and championed the treatment of dementia in the NHS and beyond, and I am pleased to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Jeremy Wright) is with us today. He is the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on dementia, and has done a tremendous amount of work to raise the profile and understanding of this great demand facing society. Dementia has no known cure, and palliative care comes heavily into play in this context. Figures suggest that a large proportion of the elderly do not access specialist services, and that palliative care is confined largely to those suffering from cancer. Indeed, 95 per cent. of palliative care patients suffer from a cancerous disease, while elderly people with conditions other than cancer account for but a small fraction of service users.
	The number of elderly people receiving palliative care would surely increase if services were made more widely available in the community and in the home. Dementia sufferers are rarely treated in hospital for long periods, and their care is often undertaken by relatives and friends. Bringing palliative care to the doorstep of the patient, whether in a care home or a private home, would benefit the patient and greatly aid the relatives and friends devoted to their care. I hope that the Minister will tell us what measures the Government will put in place to ensure that those who are not in a mental position to make an informed choice about their palliative care will not be discriminated against. The hon. Member for Southport touched on that point earlier. I also call on the Government to promote palliative care options to patients diagnosed with dementia, so that palliative care services can become more widely available and are not limited to cancer patients. That underpins the argument put by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden.
	My hon. Friend was right to say that thought must be given to the work force requirements needed to accommodate this approach. She drew our attention to the limited scale of the palliative care work force, which comprises just over 5,000 nurses and 200 doctors nationwide. We need to recognise that these are very specialist professionals; they are trained doctors, nurses, therapists and auxiliaries.
	It is important not to confuse this work force with that mentioned in this week's Budget, and the major demand for more people to work in social care generally. Here, we are talking about the specialist qualities and training required to give people palliative care and help them and their families through the process as they move towards the end of life. If the NHS is to offer more choice to patients, the skills to help deliver such care must infiltrate the wider care professions and disciplines. These professionals, along with social workers, will also be key to identifying the individuals in need of palliative care. A closer relationship between the NHS and social services with regard to palliative care strategy could enable the services to identify individuals who could benefit from palliative care and ascertain their preferred care setting so that services can be commissioned accordingly.
	The Government recognise in their end-of-life strategy the desire among patients for a choice of settings in which to receive palliative care, so I hope that they will use this Bill, promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden, as a vehicle to enable the NHS and social care work forces to be upskilled in order to offer choice across the country. Palliative care should not be sidelined into its own sector or specialism. If access and availability are to increase, it must enter the mainstream of NHS treatments. We offer significant medical and emotional support whenever life begins, so we now need to give careful thought to why we do not attend to the end of life with the same sense of reverence and expertise.
	As the Bill asserts, the definition of palliative care constitutes much more than just the supply of medical treatment. The term includes the provision of psychological, social and spiritual health and support. Some patients who value such support may well feel that it is best delivered outside the hospital. Individuals and families who have made use of hospice services often comment on the enhanced pastoral support they are able to receive once they leave the busyness of the hospital setting and can gain the time and space for reflection and rest.
	If patients are to be given the option of receiving care at home and if hospice services are to be extended to be part of the community and delivered in homes, neither their pastoral support nor medical treatment should suffer neglect. Home care must not be allowed to become a guise for inaction or cost cutting, whether on the part of the Government or of any other public service organisation. Although delivering palliative care in the home will inevitably take some pressure off hospital beds and staff—a benefit highlighted in the end-of-life care strategy itself—this outcome should be a by-product of a service that is driven by the needs of the patient.
	There are three potential areas in which legislating for choice for patients could be abused, all of which my hon. Friend's Bill would safeguard against. First, patients must not be coerced into receiving care at home if they would prefer to be treated in hospital. We do not want to reach a situation in which patients who have elected to be cared for in hospital are made to feel burdensome or undervalued. We must guard against pushing patients down an avenue of care that they are unhappy with; it is that issue of choice that lies at the heart of my hon. Friend's Bill.
	Secondly, relatives sharing the care of patients must not be made to feel isolated and unsupported outside hospital. Measures must be instigated to ensure that palliative care in the home or care home meets the same standards as care in the hospital or hospice. Even as I spoke that sentence, it was clear that a great deal of variation is evident to all. We have excellent care in some hospitals, but in others, the care for those approaching the end of life is not well regarded or renowned.
	Thirdly, as I observed earlier, choice entails co-operation between the health, social care and voluntary sectors. The need for collaboration between the organisations must not detract from the pressing need for a palliative care tariff. The Government cannot continue to assume that the voluntary sector will come in to fill the areas cut or withdrawn. I hope that the Government will again view this Bill as providing a wonderful opportunity to bring forward the tariff that they have promised.
	Recently, the rather ill-defined euphemism "local work" has been used to refer to the delivery of end-of-life care for the elderly in the dementia strategy. In using that term, there is a danger that the strategy could seek an absolution from responsibility for any real push for improved dementia services. I therefore hope that the Minister will assure us that the right to choose the location of palliative care will not become ensnared by attempts to avoid being blamed. I do not say that to the Government alone, as there is a broader culture of anxiety and concern about the possibility of being blamed in our public services and society in general. That is driving a lot of policy, which is unhelpful to attempts to take positive steps forward, such as through the measures in my hon. Friend's Bill.
	Choice must be accompanied by a clear set of standards and responsibilities. My hon. Friend's Bill rightly accentuates the need for these standards to be put in place for each palliative care setting on offer to patients, including home care. It also makes provision for assigning responsibility for the care of patients in each setting, and it would mandate the Secretary of State to issue guidance on the funding of patient choice, so that palliative care capital could be passed from one palliative care services provider to another, depending on where the patient chooses to be cared for.
	I was interested to hear the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset about this area offering the best example of the "spend to save" argument. Given that all of us on the Opposition Benches have to try to get our policies past him on those grounds, that was most encouraging and helpful—and I hope that the Government will have recognised the great force and impact of what he said, and will respond accordingly, not least on children's hospices.
	The Bill would ensure that funding followed the patient. It would lessen the financial advantage gained by hospitals whose patients choose home care over hospital care and ensure that, whatever the care setting, the needs of the patient are prioritised.
	I had considered referring to the discussions about end of life in recent debates on organ donation and the organ donation taskforce. I will not do so, however, as that has not really cropped up as a matter of debate today, and I will not stray outside our remit. There is a debate to be had, however, about the impact of some of these issues in relation to our recent organ donations debates.
	There is no direct mention of the introduction of an NHS payment by results tariff for palliative care in the Bill, but the provisions would, by default, necessitate action by the Government in this area. The introduction of ubiquitous patient choice will require careful budgeting and a tariff that ensures that the palliative care sector can cover the cost of providing care in a number of settings. The Conservative policy paper, "The patient will see you now, doctor", draws a clear link between enabling choice and creating a tariff; the two go hand in hand.
	It is time for this Government to cash in on the promises they have made, and to treat the tariff as something that is now required and that can be put in place, rather than as an elusive pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. We want this to be put in place now. I hope the Bill will be viewed by Ministers as an opportunity to change gear from neutral to fast forward, so they can fulfil the palliative care pledges that they have made.

Eleanor Laing: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point, which I fully appreciate. That is why I am making the distinction quite clear. Of course the other two are actionable—I understand that that is exactly why the hon. Gentleman has brought the matter before the House today. However, I have been considering the medical evidence, which I suggest it is important that we do that when considering new legislation such as this. Sometimes it is right that general principles of personal injury law should be upheld rather than specific instances isolated, as they would be by the Bill.
	In saying all this, I am exploring the possibilities in the Bill rather than speaking vehemently against it. As I said, when we consider this issue we do so with great compassion for and sympathy with people who have worked with asbestos and who suffer from asbestos-related diseases.

Michael Fabricant: I want to say a few words, because I, too, have had constituents with asbestosis coming to my surgery—although not, I think, as many as some other Members. Interestingly, I have been made aware of an example involving of someone who was in the Royal Navy. The circumstances related not to putting on an asbestos mask, but to working with pipes that were clad with asbestos. That has also been a major cause of this particular dysfunction.
	Where people are clearly suffering from a symptom, or have a condition that will clearly lead to a further condition that will have a symptom, there is an acceptance by every right-thinking person—and, indeed, an acceptance in the law—that compensation should be asked for and given. The problem with the Bill, however, is one of degree. A single pleural plaque, if restricted in size and in a certain part of the pleura, might not give a symptom to the person who has it. Neither is there any clear indication that a pleural plaque or group of pleural plaques will lead to asbestosis or any other lung condition; as my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) has said, several specialists have confirmed that.
	The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) pointed out that some people might have concerns that this might develop into a condition, and I understand that, but there comes a point at which one has to say that an unreasonable fear cannot be compensated for—and, indeed, at which it would be unreasonable to ask for compensation.  [Interruption.] I invite the hon. Lady to intervene, if she wishes to do so.

David Hanson: I am pleased to speak at the end of this useful debate, which has probed some of the issues that we will undoubtedly wish to probe further should the Bill be given a Second Reading today.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) on his efforts in introducing this Bill. He reflects the strong feeling on both sides of the House that this issue needs to be addressed. Indeed, it has recently been addressed by the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Justice and the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Bridget Prentice).
	I am also grateful for the comments of the hon. Members for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) and for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), who raised issues that we will wish to explore in any debate in Committee. I am also pleased to see my hon. Friends the Members for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham), for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) and for Ealing, North (Stephen Pound), as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North (Jim Sheridan), who raised this issue in an Adjournment debate on 11 February this year.
	All those hon. Members have a strong and honourable tradition of raising in this House the issue of asbestos-related conditions. They reflected widespread concern about the issue outside the House, too. For example, let me look at the submissions from the trade union movement to the Government as part of our recent consultation. I can see strong elements of support for action in relation to this Bill from Unite the Union, which has indicated that many of its members have suffered and died as a result of asbestos-related illnesses. The Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians has said that the House of Lords decision in Johnston, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon referred, was a huge blow to sufferers of pleural plaques. Unison has said that it believes that those who, through no fault of their own, have been exposed negligibly to asbestos should be rightfully entitled to compensation.

Andrew Robathan: I am keen not to talk the Bill out, but I have to say to the Government that I do not think that they have given an adequate response. We are talking about a very serious issue that affects my constituents and others. It is not an adequate response to say, "We'll push the matter into Committee and discuss it through a private Member's Bill." The Government have had time to consider the issue, and they must determine whether they wish to change the law or not.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	Hon. Members: Object.
	 Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 8 May.

Margaret Beckett: I begin by acknowledging at once the real concern that has been expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) and my right hon. Friends the Members for Streatham (Keith Hill) and for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell) not only in this debate, but over the weeks and months. All Lambeth MPs share the same concerns, and my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall has made a powerful case today on the long-standing nature of the some of the problems in Lambeth, about which I have heard on many occasions over the years. As she has rightly and powerfully said, those problems are in no way to be laid at the door of the tenants, who are most impacted by the failures of service and the proposals that the council is making.
	I also acknowledge at once that, as my hon. Friend has said, the reason for the rent increase that the council is considering is the need to balance the housing revenue account and the real difficulty in so doing. My understanding is that the council's rises come against a background of what have historically been some of the lowest rents in London and that, in addition, the council has experienced a number of challenging issues in respect of its housing service and management of stock. Incidentally, I entirely accept my hon. Friend's point that such issues have happened under Administrations of all political shades.
	Because the problems are of long standing, they can be difficult to resolve. However, I also recognise that the current council has begun to take significant steps forward, and I congratulate it on its progress. For example, it is working hard with the arm's length management organisations to reach a position at which they can qualify for funding to deliver a decent homes investment programme. I hope that the council will ensure that the ALMOs keep the Homes and Communities Agency advised of their progress and of any problems to make sure that there is a full understanding of the position and so that support that might be made available can be discussed.
	As my hon. Friend has pointed out, we have recognised the general concerns raised by councils, including Lambeth council, about the current system of providing subsidy for council housing, and its impacts, including those on rents, for this year. The system is complex, and if there is anyone around who sees it as fair or transparent, they are keeping very quiet about it. The Government want to ensure that there is a long-term sustainable system for the future that is fair and affordable for councils, tenants and taxpayers, so a widespread review has been looking in depth at the cost of the landlord business, rents and the use of surpluses, redistribution and the background issues that influence the position in Lambeth and elsewhere. I hope that we will have the report of the review soon.
	Whatever comes out of the review, I accept that it is vital that the council puts its housing finances on a better footing for the future. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for saying that both Lambeth's Members of Parliament and its tenants have concerns about that. As local authority and landlord, that is something for which the council has full responsibility. However, I share the concern expressed by my hon. Friend about how working council tenants, many of whom are among the least well-off in the community, can be expected to cope with very high rent increases in the present economic conditions.
	Having recognised that, on 6 March I announced that the Government would consult on the overall position with regard to local authority rent increases. Guideline rent increases of just over 6 per cent. for 2009-10 and 2010-11 had initially been agreed with local authorities, after consultation, in order to give what was felt at that time to be much-needed certainty to local councils in planning their future budgeting and their spending on housing. Since then, of course, inflation has fallen very sharply, and it became clear that it would be wise to look again at the position to see whether we could provide help and assistance to council tenants. We had many representations expressing concern about the widening gap between the assumptions made by the Department last September and current levels of inflation.
	Because, as a Government, we listen to the concerns that stakeholders express, we accepted that, if at all possible, something had to be done to address the situation, and we reacted quickly. First, I promised to look again at the guideline rent increase for the second year—2010-11—in the full understanding that the certainty that had been thought to be more desirable than anything else was beginning to look less desirable. I then began urgently to investigate the options to offer reduced guideline rents for 2009-10. The system is, as I have said, very complex, and we had to spend some time exploring the financial consequences of the different options. Having done so, and having successfully negotiated the necessary resources, I immediately announced our decision. It is our intention that any council reducing its actual rent rises for 2009-10 in accordance with the level of its average guideline rent reduction—from just more than 6 per cent. to just more than 3 per cent.—will be compensated through increased subsidy, to pass on to the tenant through reduced rent rises.
	I will take this opportunity, if I may, to refer to point that has been raised on this issue—we have not revisited local authorities' allowances, which were set in the original subsidy determination last autumn. They were set, as were the guideline increases, according to inflation assumptions at the time, which were at a significantly higher level, and consequently the allowances are much more generous than they would be if they were calculated now.
	Overall, this is a generous offer of improvements for tenants on the maintenance of the funding available to councils to help them to manage their own administrative responsibilities. I hope to see all councils take advantage of this opportunity to help their tenants by lowering their rents in these difficult economic times. I fully accept that, as my hon. Friend has said, against that background the dilemma faced by a council in Lambeth's position is particularly acute. It wants to help its tenants, which neighbouring boroughs may be able to do, but it needs to raise significant sums to tackle the complex and serious underlying problems in its housing finances.
	Of course, whatever the guidelines, all councils are free to make their own decisions on the actual rent levels that they set in their particular circumstances. However, we are keen to see what can be done to help councils that wish to provide a better deal for their tenants to lower their rent increases. Our general consultation on the guideline rent reduction ends today, and we are now analysing the responses, so I have yet to establish the level of take-up of our offer or to fully assess the issues that councils have raised in responding. We will carefully consider all the responses, particularly Lambeth's, when we make the final subsidy determination.
	My hon. Friend was kind enough to say that she believes that I want to help find a way forward, if at all possible. She is absolutely right about that, because I recognise the strength of the case that she has made. She referred particularly to the rental constraint allowance and to Lambeth's request for a special determination to make an adjustment to increase its rental constraint allowance bearing in mind that it uncoupled service charges from rents in 2007-08. She touched on the fact that that could perhaps deal with councils that are in that general position
	It might help if I try to clarify the position. The rental constraint allowance was introduced for a limited period only, between 2006-07 and 2007-8. The purpose of that introduction was to meet a specific Government aim of enabling councils to keep their actual rent increases down to 5 per cent. in those years. Although I recognise the argument that Lambeth is putting, I understand that there was never any intention that the rental constraint allowance itself should be a means of encouraging local housing authorities to separate service charges from rents—de-pooling—in the way that some authorities, although not Lambeth, did at the time. Any benefits that authorities might have derived from de-pooling during the relevant period when the allowance was in place were coincidental.
	That suggests that Lambeth has not been treated differently from other local authorities. I know that my hon. Friend will recognise, however reluctantly, the problems that would be caused if Lambeth were treated differently. It is impossible for any Government not to treat all councils fairly and to make particular exceptions because of unique circumstances. However, I assure her that we are prepared to listen and have been doing so, as she was kind enough to acknowledge.
	We are already providing sector-led support through the Government office for London to help Lambeth to take forward the progress that it has made and build on its achievements so far. As my hon. Friend acknowledged, Department for Communities and Local Government officials have very recently met council officers, and we are considering very carefully all the issues that they put to us.
	I know that it will be disappointing to my hon. Friend that I cannot say today that we have found a way forward through the path that she identified, but I assure her that I will continue to examine these issues very carefully with officers, representatives of the local authority and my parliamentary colleagues. We will reply quickly to Lambeth's response to our subsidy consultation, and I will continue to explore whether there are ways in which, without breaching the normal methods of handling problems that arise in local authorities, we can alleviate the real problems for Lambeth's tenants that she so eloquently identified.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.